Gemini AI produced sloppy code for Ubuntu's release helper script
An Ubuntu developer, Skia, tried Google's Gemini to generate a small Python helper for the monthly ISO snapshot releases (think Ubuntu 26.04 "Resolute Raccoon" Snapshot 2). The result: the same kind of problems seen earlier with GitHub Copilot on Ubuntu's Error Tracker-wrong assumptions, poor variable names, and strangely split responsibilities across functions.
The takeaway is simple. LLMs can be useful for scaffolding, but they still struggle with project semantics and release engineering constraints. Treat the output as a draft, not a drop-in PR.
Why this matters for teams
- Release tooling has a low tolerance for mistakes. Small logic errors can ship broken media or metadata.
- Bad naming and confused function boundaries slow reviews and inflate maintenance cost.
- Models confidently produce plausible code that passes a skim, then fails on edge cases you actually hit in production.
Common failure patterns seen here
- Incorrect semantics: inferring meaning from filenames or paths that don't map to real release rules.
- Brittle parsing: string ops where structured data (YAML/JSON) is expected.
- Assumed environments: hardcoded paths, missing permission checks, and no fallback logic.
- Weak error handling: swallow-and-continue patterns that hide failures.
- Confused responsibilities: functions doing I/O, parsing, and state mutation all at once.
- No test surface: zero unit tests, no dry-run mode, and no deterministic outputs to assert against.
Practical guardrails for AI-assisted release scripts
- Start with a tight spec: inputs, outputs, invariants, and failure modes. Make the model restate them.
- Force typed Python (3.11+), mypy clean, and ruff/black in CI. Require function-level docstrings with examples.
- Add a --dry-run flag, idempotency, and explicit temp/output dirs. No destructive defaults.
- Prefer structured data over ad-hoc string parsing. Validate schemas.
- Make side effects obvious: one module for I/O, one for pure logic. Keep functions single-purpose.
- Wire up basic tests: a golden-file test, a couple of edge cases, and a property-based test for parsing.
- Log at INFO/DEBUG with stable, greppable messages. Fail fast on integrity issues.
- Pin dependencies and avoid bringing in heavy libraries for trivial tasks.
- Run in CI against a minimal container that mirrors your release environment.
- Require a human review that traces every command affecting release artifacts.
Better prompts that produce better code
- "List assumptions and where they could fail. Turn each into an assertion or validation."
- "Generate a dry-run mode and show sample output for three scenarios: happy path, missing file, and permission error."
- "Write property-based tests for the parser using hypothesis. Include edge cases for empty and malformed inputs."
- "Propose a module split that isolates pure logic from I/O. Explain trade-offs."
Context: Ubuntu release cadence
Monthly snapshots and time-based releases amplify the cost of sloppy scripts. If you're building similar tooling, align with a clear policy for artifacts, naming, and validation. For reference, see Ubuntu's release cycle overview: ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle. You can also look at the Ubuntu Error Tracker surface area to understand why correctness matters: errors.ubuntu.com.
The bottom line
LLMs help you move faster, but only if you wrap them in guardrails. Without a spec, tests, and strict code boundaries, you'll ship headaches-especially in release engineering.
If you want structured upskilling on AI-assisted coding with practical workflows and guardrails, explore curated tracks by job role: Complete AI Training - Courses by Job.
Your membership also unlocks:
